Why I Care About The NSA Spying

[SkullKing]

So one single person = the organization?


Sorry, I'm not the one who is wrong.

As I said, the NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. A few corrupt individuals breaking the rules and not correctly using the system does not mean the organization gives a crap.

first of all, it was not a single person. It was a significant enough thing for the analists to have a specific term for it "loveint". Second it was a person working for the NSA, using the equipment, and powers of the NSA, on time it paid by the NSA.

But Ok, let me try another way then: Even though the organization may not be interested, the way it works makes it very easy for the individuals that work there to abuse the power they have, as they have done before. Like the "police" may not be interested in harassing or beating up someone, but without oversight, and needing to justification for it´s actions., it would make very easy for corrupt policeman to abuse their power.

This kind of thing tends to spreads, it forms a culture where that is accepted, and attracts people who want to abuse what power they get. Who want to get power in order to abuse it.

Basically the same logic of police needing to have warranties in order to violate someone´s privacy, and home.

[Duelist925]

So one single person = the organization?

As other have pointed out, no, not just one person. And if enough people are doing it to have a slang term made for it, that is a SERIOUS problem with the system--one that illustrates many points made.

Sorry, I'm not the one who is wrong.

It'd be lovely if you made an actual arguement as to why.

As I said, the NSA doesn't care who you are sleeping with. A few corrupt individuals breaking the rules and not correctly using the system does not mean the organization gives a crap.

I don't give half a shit of the orginization gives a crap. I give a shit that the orginization gave this power to people who would abuse it this way. I give a shit that I, an innocent man, can have my privacy violated without due fucking process.

And, as per the POINT of this thread, I am terrified of what might happen in ten years.

Right now? They don't care.

Five years from now? Ten years from then? My kids, their kids?

I do NOT want this precedent. I want them to have to justify this shit to me. If they can not come up with a compelling reason, with evidence, not just "Take our word for it", then they should not HAVE the power.

[MadMike]

Am I not allowed to comment on why I care or don't care about the NSA spying?

Yes, you are. And others are allowed to comment on why they do.

[Greenday]

I don't give half a shit of the orginization gives a crap. I give a shit that the orginization gave this power to people who would abuse it this way. I give a shit that I, an innocent man, can have my privacy violated without due fucking process.

And, as per the POINT of this thread, I am terrified of what might happen in ten years.

Right now? They don't care.

Five years from now? Ten years from then? My kids, their kids?

I do NOT want this precedent. I want them to have to justify this shit to me. If they can not come up with a compelling reason, with evidence, not just "Take our word for it", then they should not HAVE the power.

At some point, an employer has to take a leap of faith. These people who work on these programs have security clearances meaning multiple people have vouched for them. For my last clearance, a crap ton of my family and friends were interviewed. My boss from when I was 15-17 was even interviewed.

You're due process was disturbed. I get that. But if the only real harm that comes from this is hurt feelings, I can live with that and everyone can go on with their lives like they have been this entire time.

The future? Who knows? As technology advances, so shall spying. Spying will never go away.

[s_stabeler]

Greenday, you are missing the entire point. The fact that you have to take a leap of faith is a reason why they should be limited.

Second, we are NOT saying that spying should be prevented. We are saying there needs to be limits on who you spy on. Notice I advocated a two-stage approach. see who is visiting extremist websites, then spy on people who keep visiting extremist websites.

let me put it to you this way. You advocate the government spies on everybody, cporrect? then, a future government decides that if you visit, say, the Fox News website, then you are a danger to the country, and deserves to be thrown into Gitmo. THAT is the feaer. that a future government will abuse the power given now. The future is the future, so you build in protections against abuses NOW. Not after the government has already abused it's power.

Or, to give a somewhat topical example, what if the government decided that visiting pro-gun websites means you are a threat to the country?

[protege]

My point being that it's not TODAY'S NSA I'm worried about. It's tomorrow's. Today they seem to only be worried about terrorists who are actually terrorists. But I don't know about come 2030. Or what my kids will have to deal with. Or their kids. I don't know what the NSA of 2039, or 2064 will look like, and I don't even have a THOUGHT on what 2114 will be like. And I don't want to have the precedent that this can be done without the full knowledge of the people.

The problem I have with the NSA--Constitutional violations aside--is that they're collecting "evidence" for future crimes. I could somewhat understand if, say, Joe Blow, had set off a device and took out a Federal building. Naturally, his phone would be tapped. That, I have no problem with. I *do* have a problem with evidence being collected well in advance. The crime hasn't even happened yet, and the "suspect" is already been judged (and possibly already tried) and found to be "guilty."

BTW, didn't the US already try this once, under the guise of fighting communism? Hoover had his methods, but what the NSA would be his wet dream. All of it illegal (burglaries, intercepting mail, wiretapping), yet justified as "necessary." They got away with it because of fears that "those damn reds" were going to take over. Much like the NSA is trying to justify what they're doing...in the name of "terrorism."

To be fair to the NSA, they did, according to their own reports, stop one or two attacks with the PRISM program. I don't believe they've said any for MUSCULAR.

So, the NSA is claiming that they prevented an attack or two...because they say they did? Interesting circular logic there

[Hyena Dandy]

So, the NSA is claiming that they prevented an attack or two...because they say they did? Interesting circular logic there

I'm inclined to believe that number because it was the one that they came up with after being called out on the 54 number from before. I do expect they'd have been able to stop one or two, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

[Greenday]

I'm inclined to believe that number because it was the one that they came up with after being called out on the 54 number from before. I do expect they'd have been able to stop one or two, but I'm not sure it's worth it.

Interesting. What would make it worth it? How many lives would have to be saved for it to be worth it? If missing finding out about an attack on time because they stopped doing this kind of work resulted in ten deaths, would that be acceptable to you? It comes down to what's worth more: a perceived slight against personal freedoms or people's actual lives?

If it can stay at the level it's at, I'm fine with it. If it's expanded in the future to bust people over mundane crap like smoking some weed or some random BS, I'm not okay with that. I'm not willing to cut the program over the slippery slope argument, but I don't want it to move into ordinary police-work territory.

[Andara Bledin]

I was going to post a quote from Ben Frankling about liberty and safety, but I'll just link to a whole page of quotes, instead.

Ben Franklin quotes

I'm not willing to give up my liberty or rights for what may or may not result in an increase in safety and I resent that anyone argues that I should be happy with it because someone, somewhere, might have been saved because of it without any evidence that they, or someone else, might have still been saved with a system that didn't simultaneously trample all over the privacy of essentially the entire human population.

[Duelist925]

Interesting. What would make it worth it? How many lives would have to be saved for it to be worth it? If missing finding out about an attack on time because they stopped doing this kind of work resulted in ten deaths, would that be acceptable to you? It comes down to what's worth more: a perceived slight against personal freedoms or people's actual lives?

If it can stay at the level it's at, I'm fine with it. If it's expanded in the future to bust people over mundane crap like smoking some weed or some random BS, I'm not okay with that. I'm not willing to cut the program over the slippery slope argument, but I don't want it to move into ordinary police-work territory.

"Perceived slight" my entire ass. It is not a perceived slight--it is a serious infraction, and one that sets a dangerous precedent.

Lets turn this around: When is enough enough? How many freedoms are you willing to give up, in the name of perceived safety? After all, if this is alright, why not broaden it--more knowledge means less loss of life, yes?

At what point SHOULD be put our foot down, if not the very start of it?

[Greenday]

"Perceived slight" my entire ass. It is not a perceived slight--it is a serious infraction, and one that sets a dangerous precedent.

Lets turn this around: When is enough enough? How many freedoms are you willing to give up, in the name of perceived safety? After all, if this is alright, why not broaden it--more knowledge means less loss of life, yes?

At what point SHOULD be put our foot down, if not the very start of it?

Exactly what freedom has been taken away from me? I can do all the same things I wanted to do before the program started.

[Duelist925]

Exactly what freedom has been taken away from me? I can do all the same things I wanted to do before the program started.

A: Actually answer my question please.

B: The freedom of privacy, at the most basic. Due process, for another.

[Greenday]

Action should be taken when innocent people are actually harmed by this.

[Andara Bledin]

Action should be taken when innocent people are actually harmed by this.

First, innocent until proven guilty, and you don't get to prove jack shit with illegal methods.

Second: No. You don't get to drive drunk until you hit someone and you sure as hell don't get to trample all over my rights until someone gets hurt.

[Duelist925]

Action should be taken when innocent people are actually harmed by this.

I don't even know what the hell this is in response to. How can I respond to something this...boring, bland, and noncomittal? I doesn't even SAY anything.

"This"? This what? What are you referring to with the term "This"?

Action? What kind of action? The NSA's actions, or A-Team action?

Edit:

After reading Andara's post, I twigged what you meant.

And any other respond would basically be what Andy said.

You don't get to do something wrong until it hurts someone. Especially not something this far reaching. You do not get to set a precedent that can be used for abuse later, just because it's not being used for abuse now/